Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

CSO improvements head wish list for stimulus funds

3 Comments

On the Peoria City Council’s agenda for Tuesday is a “resolution establishing the City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects.” Here they are:

The City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects are as follows:

  1. Combined Sewer Improvement Projects as follows:

    a. Western Avenue Storm Sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $5.1 million.

    b. Glen Oak Avenue storm sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $1.2 million.

    c. Spring Street supplemental sewer. Estimated cost: $6.5 million.

  2. Various sidewalk projects including, but not limited to,

    a. Glen Oak School Impact Zone. Estimated cost: $475,000.

    b. Sidewalks at Kellar Primary School, Charter Oak School and Rolling Acres School. Estimated cost: $525,000.

    c. Lake Avenue sidewalk at Sheridan Village. Estimated cost: $90,000.

    d. Sheridan and Lake Intersection improvement. Estimated cost: $125,000.

    e. ADA Ramp Program. Estimated cost: $250,000.

    f. Liberty Park sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $100,000.

    g. Sheridan Road sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $230,000.

  3. Construction of Darst Street and Clark Street in the Southern Gateway Area. Estimated cost: $3.33 million.

Presumably, these are all “shovel ready” projects. My only thought is, we keep hearing that the total CSO project is going to cost at least $100 million, but the three CSO projects listed here total just $12.8 million. I guess I wish we could get more money for that project since it’s an unfunded mandate that’s going to be very hard for our city to afford.

But on the other hand, every little bit helps, and it’s pretty unlikely we would receive anywhere near $100 million from the federal government. So this sounds like a good list to me.

City of Peoria, Comcast

Comcast gets raked over the coals

18 Comments

Over 60 people showed up at City Hall on Tuesday evening for a chance to tell Comcast what they think of the city’s only cable provider. Comcast representatives Debra Piscola (Director of Government Affairs) and John Niebur (District Director) listened as over 30 residents — including six city council members — expressed frustration over service and pricing issues.

The most common complaints were:

  • No local customer service — When you need to call Comcast, there is no local number available; you have to call an 800 number and talk to a call center in some other city. There were also complaints over how long it takes these call centers to answer the phone.
  • Channel movement — C-SPAN2, EWTN, and other analog channels were reassigned to digital channels, and some channels such as National Geographic were reassigned to most expensive cable packages.
  • Pricing — When Comcast first took over Insight, they said they weren’t going to raise prices, then immediately raised prices. Then they reassigned channels, some to more expensive tiers, causing many residents to feel they were paying more for less service. One person reported that he was quoted one price, but when he threatened to switch to a satellite service, he received a lower price, prompting him to ask what the real price is. Another resident similarly asked for “transparency in pricing.”

One person requested the ability to choose which cable channels he wanted and pay only for those (also known as “a la carte” pricing). Another complained that he was given a 12-hour service window, meaning he had to wait around his house from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the cable company to do a simple installation; the cable technician showed up at 7:50 p.m.

The Comcast representatives answered some questions, but mostly just thanked the audience for expressing their concerns and promised to address those concerns in their franchise agreement negotiations with the city.

City council members in attendance were Clyde Gulley (1st District), Bob Manning (3rd District), Bill Spears (4th District), Pat Nichting (5th District), Ryan Spain (at-large), George Jacob (at-large), and Eric Turner (at-large). Gulley left early, but the rest of the council members in attendance said that they get numerous complaints from constituents regarding the cable company. Spain said the number of complaints he gets rivals the number of people calling about more expensive and controversial issues like the CSO project and the recent downtown hotel plans.

Turner said that he wouldn’t support a new franchise agreement if service issues aren’t addressed and improved. Unfortunately, that’s somewhat of an empty threat, since state law allows cable companies to get franchise agreements directly through the state, bypassing local municipalities completely. City Attorney Randy Ray says the public hearing Tuesday night is one advantage of having a local franchise agreement — if Comcast were to get a state franchise, local residents likely would have to trek to Springfield for any public hearings regarding cable service.

Original plans were to bring a new franchise agreement to the council for approval at the next scheduled meeting. However, due to the “level of dissatisfaction,” Ray said it may take a little longer to negotiate an agreement that the council will support. The last 20-year franchise agreement expired in April 2006, but has been temporarily extended multiple times during negotiations for a new agreement.

City of Peoria, Comcast

Tell Comcast what you think of them

34 Comments

I have to laugh whenever I hear Comcast commercials “warning” people that satellite TV service may pixellate or completely lose its signal when there’s inclement weather. I laugh because Comcast can do that in all types of weather! Not only that, some channels may disappear because they’ve moved them from an analog channel to a digital one. And if you call to complain, you don’t get to talk to anyone locally, you have to call an 800 number and deal with some completely unhelpful wage slave in Who-knows-where.

Why not cancel Comcast service, you ask? A couple of reasons. First, they’re the only place you can see local access channels, including the Peoria City Council meetings and school board meetings. Second, they can be the cheapest service you can get, if you get Basic Cable. I only pay about $15/month. But just because I don’t pay big bucks for a digital cable package doesn’t mean I should get shoddy reception and poor service.

So, I think I’ll be attending this meeting:

The City of Peoria and Comcast Cable will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at Peoria City Hall, in City Council Chambers (Room 400).

The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss the current contract with Comcast and the services provided by them. This will be an opportunity for the public to make comment and voice any concerns regarding Comcast.

The public is welcome and encouraged to attend.

City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Words most used in Ardis’s speech

25 Comments

I saw the Chicago Tribune use this feature called TagCrowd on Blagojevich’s speech, so I thought I’d use it for Mayor Ardis’s State of the City speech. It’s not a particularly meaningful feature, but it’s a fun novelty:

created at TagCrowd.com

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC, New Urbanism

LDC misunderstood by developers

6 Comments

Attorney Bob Hall thinks the Land Development Code “certainly has a lot of bugs,” according to today’s Journal Star. But it doesn’t really. It just has a lot of things he or the developer he represents either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand, which is typical regardless of what zoning regulations are in place.

Still, some comments made by Mr. Hall deserve a response.

Hall said the reason [council deferred approving a variance for 741 W. Main] was because other requirements within the code were preventing the redevelopment from occurring.

One of those requirements focuses on the size of awnings required along Main Street. Hall said the zoning requirements maintain that an awning six-feet horizontally would have to go up.

“It would probably stretch out into Main Street,” he said.

Not quite. I went out today and measured. From the front of the building to the curb, it’s seven feet. A six-foot awning would do exactly what it’s supposed to do — cover the sidewalk to within a foot of the street. Awnings have a purpose, and it’s not to be merely decorative. They provide shade and shelter for pedestrians and patrons, as well as additional signage for the business. They’re also not required; the code simply says when you have them, they have to be a certain size. In any event, there’s nothing about the awning requirement that should be “preventing the redevelopment from occurring,” other than the developer just not liking it.

Also, Hall said there is no requirement for a street wall or any decorative fencing at newer developments at nearby properties, such as the Peoria NEXT Innovation Center.

“Newer” developments to be sure, but approved before approval of the Land Development Code took effect. Had the LDC been in place when those projects were approved, they would have had to follow the same guidelines.

But [Hall] said he has other clients wanting to redevelop in the city’s older neighborhoods and that the code’s detailed specifics are causing problems. For instance, Hall said Knoxville Avenue – where one of the developments is to occur – “should not have been included” as part of the land development code, which highlights the principles of New Urbanism to make older neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly.

“Knoxville is a thoroughfare,” Hall said. “New Urbanism is for neighborhood stuff.”

These statements illustrate the need for education, something the Heart of Peoria Commission was working on when it was unceremoniously disbanded. New Urbanism is not just about making older parts of town more walkable, nor is it restricted only to neighborhoods. The principles of New Urbanism were only applied to the older parts of Peoria because those were the bounds set by the city council for the Heart of Peoria Plan project. New Urbanism is a comprehensive philosophy of town planning that covers private and public space, commercial and residential areas, streets and thoroughfares. In fact, all these things have to work in concert with each other to create great places; it’s the dis-integration of these things that has caused many of our urban (and suburban) problems.

The Land Development Code is going to get challenges like this until developers understand the purpose behind it, adapt to it, and hopefully embrace it. It’s incumbent upon the Planning and Growth Department to provide this education and to defend the code — within reason, of course.

And here, I should mention that I’m not saying the code cannot ever be questioned. But challenges to the code must be made in context with the intent of the code. The street wall requirement, for example, was worth taking under consideration. There was some disagreement over where that requirement in the code came from — Ferrell-Madden claimed it was the architectural review committee that insisted on it, but one of the members of that committee claims it was Ferrell-Madden’s decision to include it. Ultimately, the ad hoc group that is reviewing the form-based code portion of the LDC, with input from Ferrell-Madden, decided to modify this provision, but only because such revisions could be done while still fulfilling the code’s intent.

2008 Campaign, City of Peoria, Weather

New snow plan has unintended consequences

13 Comments

It all looks good on paper:

The City of Peoria has not established a “Bare pavement” policy for each and every roadway. Bare pavement will dramatically increase our costs as well as negative environmental impacts. If a citizen will drive carefully for a few blocks to a roadway with a higher level of service, travel throughout Peoria can be made easier and safer. Balancing levels of service to user volumes is the most efficient use of Peoria’s tax dollars and minimizes damage to the environment.

The plan was executed to the letter this year, which resulted in excellent driving on primary routes and treacherous driving on residential streets. Many residential streets are a solid sheet of ice, but Public Works and the City Council are evidently okay with that level of “service.”

What the snow plan didn’t take into account was the effect this would have on service vehicles, like garbage trucks. Many residents haven’t had garbage pickup for two weeks now — an inconvenience any time of year, but certainly around Christmas when there is a lot of extra garbage. Here’s the latest press release from the city:

In response to the icy conditions on roads and alleys, Waste Management has suspended residential and commercial collection for today. Collections will resume tomorrow, Saturday, December 27th, for the routes scheduled for collection today.

The icy conditions on roads and alleys are due in no small part to the city’s planned neglect of them, per the snow plan. The icy conditions are so bad that even the city’s snow plows are having trouble getting through neighborhoods now. Here’s another press release:

City crews are treating residential areas with a sand/salt mix to increase traction. Progress is delayed due to most inclines, that will force the salt truck to back up the street to prevent sliding.

If the snow plows can’t get through without sliding, how well do you think the average motorist is able to navigate these streets to get to “a roadway with a higher level of service”? Snow plows, garbage trucks, even Journal Star delivery has been delayed due to the icy conditions.

My guess is that the snow plan was designed to handle snow, but not ice like we’ve had this year. Maybe the city should reevaluate the snow plan in light of these developments and establish an “ice plan” for the future.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

“Wonderful development” agreement raises questions (Updated 2x)

23 Comments

The proposed redevelopment agreement (aka “wonderful development”) for the Pere Marquette hotel was finally made public at 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Monday night, the council will be voting on it. Council members have to read all the details online because the hard-copy packets weren’t ready by the end of the day Friday. Talk about a fast track!

In reading the agreement, some things caught my attention, and I hope the council members consider these items carefully before voting. In fact, it would be better if they deferred this until their next meeting instead making a hasty decision, but I’m not holding my breath expecting that to happen. Anyway, here are my concerns:

1. The use of General Obligation Bonds

The nearly $40 million in city funding is proposed to be in the form of general obligation bonds instead of revenue bonds. Both types of bonds would be paid back out of revenue generated by the project, assuming the project is profitable. The catch comes if the project is (God-forbid) not profitable. General obligation bonds are backed by the full taxing authority of the city. So if the project goes south, the bonds get paid for out of the city’s general fund — that is, taxpayers assume the risk. Revenue bonds are backed by the hotel building itself (which is used as collateral) and/or a specified revenue stream (H taxes, for instance), so if the project goes south, bond holders would be able to foreclose on the hotel, but the city wouldn’t be obligated to settle up the debt out of the general fund. As a taxpayer, that makes me nervous.

The explanation given in the packet is a bit cryptic: “A revenue bond is not likely to be successful because there is no current revenue and, thus, no history on which to base a revenue stream. A revenue bond would almost certainly result in a higher interest rate for the City.” Perhaps someone out there with a finance background can explain this to me. I thought the lack of history for a revenue stream was precisely why revenue bonds had higher interest rates. Under the scenario presented, when would a municipality ever be able to utilize revenue bonds for new construction?

2. Optimistic occupancy projections

The developer of this hotel project is anticipating occupancy rates of 60% in 2012, 69% in 2013, 72% in 2014, and 74% in 2014 and beyond — best-case scenario. However, the developer also states that the hotel will be successful even under more conservative figures: 60% in 2012, 65% in 2013 and 2014, and 68% in 2015 and beyond.

The Pere Marquette had a 54% occupancy rate in 2005, according to published news reports. And in September 2006, a Civic Center Hotel Study was prepared by HVS Convention, Sports, & Entertainment Facilities Consulting. They were looking at building a new hotel immediately adjacent to the Civic Center that would add 250 rooms to the hotel market and compete with the Pere and other downtown hotels. The project being proposed now, of course, is an expansion of the Pere by 200 rooms (the addition of a new tower). Their market analysis concluded:

HVS estimates a stabilized occupancy of 67% for the proposed Civic Center Hotel. Although the subject property may operate at occupancies above this stabilized level, we believe it is equally possible for new competition and temporary economic downturns to force occupancy levels below this selected point of stability.

So, the stabilized occupancy rate prediction was 67% in 2006 — before we entered a recession — which is a point lower than the “conservative” stabilized rate the developer is now using for his projections — in the midst of a recession.

When this report was presented to the City Council, Bob Manning asked about that projected occupancy rate and whether it could support a 250-room hotel:

Discussion was held regarding the projected number of room stays and how the projections were determined. Council Member Manning expressed concern regarding how the occupancy rate was determined, which he felt would not support a 250-room hotel. Mr. Hazinski said he agreed and that was the reason the study projected a decrease in occupancy rates in the market. He said the market ran in the mid-sixties when it was doing well, and really could not be expected to do better than that.

Given this information, and the fact that we are in a recession, it would seem that the more conservative figures are closer to the truth. And if you look at the bond payment scenario based on those conservative figures, there’s not a whole lot of room for error. It looks like, if they miss their projections on those occupancy rates by even a little bit, they could be quickly operating in the red. Guess where the money comes from to make up the difference if that happens — money that could be used to pay police officers or fix streets and sidewalks.

Also, what’s the average room rate going to be? That seems like a reasonable piece of information to include, especially in financial predictions. It will make a difference when it comes to occupancy rates. If these rates are higher than the Embassy Suites and a newly-renovated Holiday Inn, will budget-minded conference-goers and their employers opt for cheaper room rates and forgo the luxury and convenience of an attached “headquarters hotel”?

3. Questionable comparisons.

In the Request for Council Action cover memo, Interim City Manager Henry Holling mentions several other hotel projects in Illinois that used government subsidies, including Normal, East Peoria, and Tinley Park. So I thought I’d look up a little info on those projects.

  • Normal Marriott — This project should give us pause. According to documents available on the Normal.org, “In July of 2004, the Town of Normal entered into a redevelopment agreement with Mr. John Q. Hammons of Springfield, Missouri pertaining to the construction of a full service Marriott Hotel and Conference Center along with a required parking structure…. [T]he total project cost was estimated by the developer to be approximately $43 million ($30 million-hotel; $8 million-conference center; $5 million-parking garage).” Normal’s subsidy was estimated to be about $13 million toward the project. However, by October 2006, the estimated cost of the project had risen dramatically to $72.6 million — a $29.6 million (68.8%) increase! That, of course, meant that the Town of Normal’s share also ballooned to $21.1 million. Despite that huge increase, their share of the overall investment was only 29%. Here in Peoria, the city’s share of the Marriott project would be 40%.

  • East Peoria Embassy Suites — In 2003, the plan was to build a publicly-owned conference center and a privately-owned but publicly-subsidized Embassy Suites. The developer was the same as in Normal — John Q. Hammons. Fortunately for East Peoria, the costs didn’t rise as much as they did for Normal, only going up to $60 million. Holling’s memo states, “The level of subsidy [being proposed in Peoria] is also similar to the level provided for the Embassy Suites in East Peoria, which was also approximately 40% of the total project costs.” Yes, but we’re comparing apples and oranges here. In East Peoria, their $25 million subsidy paid for 100% of the conference center with the rest going toward the hotel. $25 million is about 42% of $60 million. But if you look at East Peoria’s subsidy to the hotel alone, it only comes out to 27% ($13 million out of $48 million). In 2007, the city decided to lease the conference center to Hammons for a progressive annual fee. They use that money to pay off its construction cost ($12 million) plus maintenance and improvements instead of relying on what one East Peoria commissioner called “unpredictable net revenue.”

  • Tinley Park Convention Center with Holiday Inn Select — According to Mr. Holling, “Tinley Park built their center with substantial governmental assistance, and is preparing a major expansion.” In the context we’re talking about, that sounds a bit misleading. Yes, construction of their approx. $6 million publicly-owned convention center was funded 100% by a $7.5 million bond issue. But the adjacent Holiday Inn Select was built with little governmental assistance compared to Normal and East Peoria. The only governmental assistance that $15 million project received was inclusion in a TIF district and some assistance with land acquisition. The hotel plan actually predated plans for the convention center and was part of a development of 300 town homes, also included in the TIF district. The Chicago Tribune reported just this month (12/4/2008) that an expansion is planned: “Tinley Park owns the convention center and will invest more than $10 million in the project. The money will come from tax-increment finance revenues, which come from increased property value from a designated area.” The hotel is also expanding, but on its developer’s own dime. Mid-Continent Development and Construction, “which manages the [convention] center and owns the adjoining Holiday Inn Select…plans to invest $10 million into upgrades to the hotel, including 68 new rooms and a second kitchen to the six-story hotel.”

None of these projects approach the kind of deal being proposed in Peoria. The highest subsidy among these three initiatives was 29% of the total project cost. So why do we need to pay 40% in Peoria? Holling explains: “The Embassy Suites did fund the Conference center construction, but site acquisition and assembly was lower cost and no parking structure was required.” So, apparently, the reason why Peoria taxpayers need to pony up more money is to help with land acquisition ($22 million) and parking ($10 million). And of course the $5 million sky bridge. Those three things total about $37 million.

So, the question is, is it worth it? That’s the ultimate question that needs to be asked and answered Monday night.

UPDATE: Regarding land acquisition, the Journal Star reports the Pere Marquette is being acquired for $11 million. The information presented to the City Council indicates that total acquisition costs are $22 million. That means the remaining properties (Lasher building and Big Al’s entertainment complex) are being purchased for $11 million. Yet the fair market value of those buildings, according to the Peoria County Assessor (and the amount on which they pay property taxes), is only $1,353,540. Even going by recent sales amounts, the Lasher building (corner of Main and Monroe) sold in August of this year for $1.05 million, and the four parcels that make up Big Al’s entertainment complex sold in 2004 for $1.5 million. That’s a total of $2.55 million for all the buildings — yet the City is poised to purchase them from Al Zuccarini for $11 million. Plus, they’ve already facilitated his move to an as-yet-undisclosed location, likely to be 414 Hamilton Blvd., by changing their adult use ordinance. Wow. One would think with that kind of money (our tax money, by the way), Al could have found a place that complied with the adult use ordinance as it stood.

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star agrees with me. Excellent editorial. That new guy is working out okay. 🙂

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

On hotels and sky-bridges: Look past the hype, Pt. 2 (Updated)

31 Comments

One of the apparent non-negotiables of this hotel deal is the $5 million pedestrian bridge that is supposed to connect the proposed Marriott to the Peoria Civic Center and the hotel also have other luxuries like a gym and a pool that they kept clean using the best pool filter for this. We are told that this will help the Civic Center draw bigger conventions to Peoria because what’s been holding us back is the lack of high-quality hotel space adjacent/connected to the Civic Center. In order for the Civic Center to consider the Pere/Marriott its official convention-center hotel, it wants to have it physically connected.

I buy the lack of high-quality hotel space — our hotels definitely need to be upgraded. But I’m not sold on the physical connectedness being essential. No objective study that I’m aware of has quantified how much more business we would get by having a physically-attached hotel.

Indeed, in a 24 March 2006 memo to the City Council, the Civic Center Authority itself said, “We believe [the expanded Civic Center] can be successful without an attached hotel [emphasis mine] but more and larger regional opportunities will be possible if more and better downtown hotel rooms are available.” Note their main concern is quality and quantity of rooms. The C. H. Johnson Master Plan Analysis said, “To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) [emphasis mine] of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.” The Pere Marquette and the proposed addition is within one block. Here’s another quote:

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

Again, the quality and quantity of rooms was most important according to the Civic Center’s own study. Connectivity was not a major factor.

I’m not saying that having an adjacent or connected hotel would not be an additional advantage for convention sales. I’m saying that (a) it’s not the most pressing problem holding back convention business, and (b) there’s no quantifiable data showing that building a $5 million sky-bridge is going to give the Civic Center a sufficient additional bump in convention sales to justify its cost. How many years (decades?) would it take for the city, private investors, etc., to see a return on that investment? To put it another way, evidence from the Civic Center and their consultant indicates increasing the number and improving the quality of rooms will provide a sufficient boost to convention sales; the additional amenity of a sky-bridge does not appear to provide a $5 million added value. The only “evidence” I’ve heard in support of a sky-bridge as a way to bring in more convention business has been anecdotal or, at best, inconclusive.

Another problem with the sky-bridge plan is this: the hotel plan includes street-level retail around the parking deck, which is a good thing if you’re trying to activate the street. But these shops are going to be below the sky-bridge. The people most likely to patronize those shops — the hundreds of guests staying at the hotel during a convention and walking back and forth to the Civic Center — are going to be directed to the sky-bridge to access the Civic Center. And the shops will be inaccessible from the sky-bridge. Has anyone thought about the self-defeating nature of this plan? Who is going to be on the street to patronize these businesses?

Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper as saying, “In addition to improving the ability of the Civic Center, it will help us revitalize Downtown Peoria on the business side.” With all due respect to the Mayor, downtown is not going to be revitalized by taking more people off the streets and funneling them through sky-bridges. Plenty of other cities have proven it.

Generally, sky-bridges are a thing of the past. Cities that have them are removing them. They’re outdated and cause more problems than they solve. We should be learning from the mistakes of other cities instead of making the same mistakes ourselves. That’s the thesis of a report by Kathleen Hill, written while she was getting her Master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Utah.

I’d love to quote the whole darn thing, but it’s 43 pages long. So let me quote just this one passage that deals with the most common justification for sky-bridges I hear:

And for those who argue that protection from the elements is necessary, consider the following write-up (People of the Skyway, November 2004) specifically addressing skywalks in the winter cities,

“Why doesn’t Chicago or New York or any of dozens of other cold-climate urban centers have skyways? After all, the main difference between winters in the Twin Cities and in other places is the outlier months, November and March, which tend to be colder and snowier here. The answer is simple to urban architects and planners like Ken Greenberg, head of Toronto-based Greenberg Consultants: Skyways are a bad idea. “The skyway network is a prime example of a highly focused, oversimplified solution to one problem—exposure to climate—that in turn creates others,” he says. “Climate protection is achieved but at a great cost. Street life virtually disappears; retail is moribund, functioning at best for weekday noon hours but not on weekends or in the evening.” That criticism hits its mark in both downtowns, but particularly in St. Paul, which practically ceases to exist outside regular office hours. As one fellow bus-rider remarked to another the other day, heading from downtown toward Lowertown, “This really is a ghost town after five.”

A primary mover behind the downtown development blueprint St. Paul has been following since 1996, “The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework,” Greenberg points out that retail and street life can and do thrive in similar, very cold urban areas without skyways—even in places just outside downtown. “A good example is Grand Avenue in St. Paul,” he says. And downtown St. Paul itself, before the skyways. “Where skyway solutions have been employed in other cities like Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton,” Greenberg adds, “the results have been similar.”

For evidence, Greenberg points to an April 11, 2004, editorial in the Hartford Courant, in which urban planner Toni Gold delights in the demise of that city’s twenty-year-old skyways (which they called “skywalks”). Gold, who works at a New York City nonprofit called Project for Public Spaces, begins her commentary: “Hartford’s skywalks are coming down, with barely a whimper of protest from their one-time proponents, or even a hurray from their one-time opponents. Well, hurray, I say. Two cheers for city sidewalks. It’s now become obvious and widely acknowledged that cities should reinforce their sidewalks, not compete with them.”

Incidentally, the report goes on to state that Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak “refus[ed] to build a large hotel adjacent to the Minneapolis Convention Center, precisely because ‘people wouldn’t get out on the streets enough’.” I’ll bet they still get more conventions than we do, even without an attached hotel.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post, I was unable to access the entire C. H. Johnson study because the Civic Center’s link to it had been removed, so I was relying on incomplete information. Never a good idea. I have since been able to obtain a copy of the full report (now available here on my site), and it does, in fact, propose a sky-bridge to connect the Pere Marquette to the Civic Center:

With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US. One recent example is the 257-room Radisson Hotel in Lansing, Michigan, which is connected to the Lansing Center via a heated sky bridge over the Grand River.

That correction made, however, my larger point still stands. The report does, in fact, focus primarily on the number and quality of rooms available within close proximity. The additional boost that physical attachment would give is not quantified. And, I’m sorry, but I just don’t see Fulton Street as the same kind of physical barrier as the Grand River in Lansing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

On hotels and sky-bridges: Look past the hype, Pt. 1

11 Comments

At its next meeting scheduled for Monday, Dec. 15, the City Council will almost assuredly approve a new hotel development in downtown Peoria that includes an elevated pedestrian walkway, or sky-bridge, connecting the hotel to the Civic Center.

Naturally, the prospect of getting a downtown hotel of the caliber of a Marriott is exciting. New and/or improved hotels are desperately needed in our central business district by all accounts. When someone comes to the city and waves a $102 million project under their noses, it’s hard not to jump at the opportunity.

But this isn’t a purely private venture. The developer and investors are asking for just under $40 million in revenue bonds from the city to help pay for construction. These bonds would be paid back with revenues from the hotel over a 23-year period. It’s being presented as a sure thing — but there is a risk to consider — whether the hotel will perform well enough to pay back those bonds. The council members have an obligation to weigh that risk and make their decisions based on facts and the long-term interests of Peoria’s citizens, not hype.

And there’s no small amount of hype, starting with one city official’s pronouncement that this is a “wonderful development” before it was even made public. More recently, it’s been described as “a key to bringing large conventions to central Illinois and generating millions in revenues every year,” as the Journal Star put it. But are these predictions about the Civic Center and the need for a hotel with a sky-bridge to be believed?

Heywood Sanders warned the Peoria City Council back in 2004 — before they voted to expand the Civic Center — that similar predictions then of “millions in revenues” from “large conventions” being lured here were wildly optimistic. The Journal Star reported on October 18, 2004:

Since the mid-1980s, Sanders has reviewed more than 80 feasibility studies for new or expanded convention centers and tracked the outcome of those facilities in terms of new conventions and trade shows added to the annual roster, attendance at those events and hotel nights resulting from new convention business.

Without exception, every report has assured cities that if they “build it, you’ll do great.” But high expectations laid out within the studies are going unrealized as the convention market stagnates and new or recently renovated centers add millions of square feet of space per year, effectively shrinking the share of business to go around, Sanders said.

Sanders told a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee basically the same thing in 2007:

The expansion of convention center supply, coupled with changes in demand and convention attendance since the late 1990s, has resulted in a highly competitive market. A great many cities have seen significant decreases in their annual convention and tradeshow attendance in recent years, and have come to rely on a variety of financial incentives.

And what are those “incentives”? Mainly discounts on rental costs and hotel rates. He goes on:

The increased competition for convention business has two direct implications for communities that have invested in new or expanded centers. First, discounts and incentives reduce the operating revenues of a center, increasing annual operating losses and the public subsidies required for convention center operation. Second, the volume of annual convention attendees has become increasingly uncertain, as groups and organizers face a growing roster of medium to large size centers seeking to gain new business.

So, what are the projected revenues for this hotel? Are they realistic? Or are they based on optimistic numbers in a consultant study like the C.H. Johnson Consulting study from August 2002 upon which the $55 million expansion of the Civic Center was based? Johnson Consulting at that time predicted “an additional 221,600 visitors to Downtown Peoria in the first year after improvements are complete, with 87,500 attending 66 new events in the convention and ballroom areas,” according to the Journal Star, and “The total of new visitors would spend an estimated $19 million, generating $1.4 million in general sales taxes, $188,000 in hotel taxes, $102,000 in restaurant taxes and $36,000 in amusement taxes.”

So, let’s add those numbers up and compare them to actual figures. In the first year after the expansion was completed, we should have seen 66 new events and $326,000 more in HRA tax revenue. The expansion was completed in 2007. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the Civic Center reported 544 events and $1,729,846 in HRA tax revenues. At the end of fiscal year 2008, the Civic Center reported 590 events and $1,779,762 in HRA tax revenues. That works out to an increase of 46 events and $49,916 in increased HRA tax revenues — both well short of projections, just as Sanders had predicted.

Note in particular how far short the HRA tax revenues fell — they rose only 15% of what was projected: $49,916 instead of $326,000. Will the hotel’s occupancy and revenue projections be more accurate? St. Louis’s taxpayer-owned convention center hotel (also a Marriott, incidentally), which opened in 2000, is on the verge of having its bondholders foreclose on it since it started missing payments due to lower occupancy than expected. Peoria would be wise to double- and triple-check the numbers before agreeing to put the city on the hook for $40 million.